Balveer @ Veera vs State Of Uttarakhand

Lok Pal Singh, J

1) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal no. 19 of 2006, as also the judgment and order dated 01.04.2006, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kashipur, in Criminal Case no. 133 of 2003, State vs Balveer @ Veera, whereby courts below have convicted the accused-revisionist under Section 332 and 352 of IPC. The accused-revisionist was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 332 of IPC along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. He was further directed to undergo six months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 600/- under Section 353 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the court below.

2) Prosecution story in brief is that complainant Dilip Singh lodged a report with police Station, Bazpur, stating therein, that on 20.12.2997, at about 05:00 P.M., he received an information that Kartar Singh @ Kallu and Balveer Singh @ Veera after cutting the green eucalyptus trees from the reserved forest and loading the same on Dunlop "bullock cart" were taking the vehicle towards village Ittawa. Complainant, Forest Guard along with Forest Guard Indra Lal and Watcher Kunwar Singh proceeded on foot towards village Ittawa in search the said bullock cart, but by that time the accused persons had already concealed the eucalyptus woods at some place. When the forest officials were investigating the matter, both the accused met them at the intersection of village Ittawa. Both the accused without any provocation started assaulting the complainant with wooden sticks, as a result of which, the complainant sustained injuries on his face, chest and back. Some villagers intervened in the matter and thereafter the complainant along with his companions returned back to outpost Jogipura and sent a letter by special messenger to this effect to the higher officers. It was also stated in the report, that these accused persons also attacked Chandra Mohan Singh, forest official of Guljarpur Beet, on 01.12.1997, with wooden sticks and counter made pistol. A report regarding said incident was lodged by Chandra Mohan Singh on 01.12.1997 with ROP, Kundeshwari, P.S. Kahsipur, Udham Singh Nagar. Both the accused were threatening the complainant that what they had done with Chandra Mohan Singh, the same treatment will by meted out to him and any other forest official if found anywhere. It was further stated that these accused persons were professional timber thieves and always used to commit maar peet with the forest officials on being caught. Many FIRs under the Indian Forest Act were lodged against both these accused.

3) On the basis of said report, case crime no. 631 of 1997 was registered against the accused-revisionist in respect of offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 379 of IPC and Section 26 of Forest Act, at P.S. Bazpur. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused-revisionist under Sections 332, 353 of IPC. Charge in respect of selfsame offences were framed against the accused-revisionist, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the entire evidence on record, the trial court convicted the accused-revisionist under Sections 332, 353 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the convict preferred criminal appeal. The appellate court did not find favour to the convict-revisionist and maintained the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. Hence, present criminal revision.

5) Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the revisionist would confine his argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the incident pertains to the year 1997. Since then, almost 21 years have elapsed and the revisionist is consistently facing mental agony due to the pendency of the criminal case against him. He would also submit that the revisionist has remained in jail for about 74 days. In such circumstances, leaned counsel for the revisionist would submit that lenient view may be taken in respect of the revisionist and the sentence awarded against him be reduced.

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

7) Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and after considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the courts below. Courts below have rightly convicted the revisionist in respect of the offences to which he was charged. The conviction of the revisionist is, therefore, affirmed. Now, this Court has to consider the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence only.

8) Section 332 of IPC speaks about voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty and the punishment prescribed for said offence is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 353 of IPC defines assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty and the punishment prescribed for said offence is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

9) Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by sending the revisionist to jail after a lapse of 21 years of the incident, as such the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist along with fine of Rs. 500/- each on both counts.

10) Accordingly, criminal revision is partly allowed by affirming the conviction recorded by the courts below under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC. However, for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone along with fine of Rs.500/- each on both counts, which will be deposited by him before the trial court within one month from today. The revisionist will be entitled to adjustment of fine already deposited by him, if any. In case of failure to deposit the fine as directed above, sentence recorded by the courts below shall stand revived.

11) Revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender unless required in any other case. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

12) Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court forthwith for compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.